[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

bnpederson wrote:

It's just a PR move as they focus on selling guns for the cops and the military to kill people with instead of us average citizens. There's plenty of other companies that make the same AR-15 parts that can be assembled into full guns, often for cheaper than buying it new.

Truth is, it is going to take private companies taking a stand, one by one to move what’s legally acceptable to culturally unacceptable. Dicks, Wal-Mart, Colt - they might cynically be PR moves, but they are also doing at least something - sometimes it’s just what they can do within their own orbits, but we shouldn’t simply discount it because others still make them or you can buy uppers and lowers and make your own rifle at any time.

Not to be mean, but that argument sounds a lot like climate deniers saying America shouldn’t do anything because others are polluting as much or more, so why bother that we’ve only just recently heard from our esteemed Republican congressmen at the latest hearing.

If anything is to be done on this topic, or many others at this point, it’s going to be on the backs of corporations and states to do so and not the federal government, which is so completely f*cked that they can only currently seem to kind of agree to donate a majority of our taxes to our military to fight the bogeymen of the world.

Leaning on corporations to set our policies ‘softly’ really sucks, but that’s where we are at it seems.

Is there any difference between a civillian model and a law enforcement model? Or is this move more a reduction in production and a change in who they distribute to?

Clumber wrote:

Is there any difference between a civillian model and a law enforcement model? Or is this move more a reduction in production and a change in who they distribute to?

No, there is no difference between the two, in that they’re semi-automatic .556 NATO caliber rounds. The reason that the AR-15 is so ubiquitous is that it’s highly moddable with all kinds of scopes, sights, hardware and other items. I’m not positive, but it’s some of those items that might be law enforcement only items and not for public... consumption.

I thought law enforcement had full-auto or 3-round burst receivers?

BlackSheep wrote:

Truth is, it is going to take private companies taking a stand, one by one to move what’s legally acceptable to culturally unacceptable. Dicks, Wal-Mart, Colt - they might cynically be PR moves, but they are also doing at least something - sometimes it’s just what they can do within their own orbits, but we shouldn’t simply discount it because others still make them or you can buy uppers and lowers and make your own rifle at any time.

So we're f*cked? I mean, I largely agree on that point.

But look, I'm not saying we shouldn't be glad Wal-Mart is bowing to public pressure and no longer selling guns. That's a PR move but it does help.

What I AM saying we shouldn't be singing the praises of a gun manufacturing company for shifting to a, as mentioned, less saturated market. Colt is not Wal-Mart.

Colt's just going to come back with the vaping equivalent of the AR-15.

bnpederson wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:

Truth is, it is going to take private companies taking a stand, one by one to move what’s legally acceptable to culturally unacceptable. Dicks, Wal-Mart, Colt - they might cynically be PR moves, but they are also doing at least something - sometimes it’s just what they can do within their own orbits, but we shouldn’t simply discount it because others still make them or you can buy uppers and lowers and make your own rifle at any time.

So we're f*cked? I mean, I largely agree on that point.

But look, I'm not saying we shouldn't be glad Wal-Mart is bowing to public pressure and no longer selling guns. That's a PR move but it does help.

What I AM saying we shouldn't be singing the praises of a gun manufacturing company for shifting to a, as mentioned, less saturated market. Colt is not Wal-Mart.

But it’s the optics man. They’re a gun company. They’re going to take (no pun) flak for this move from the ridiculous Right and they know that and signed up for that. For that, I absolutely applaud the public showing. They didn’t have to bother going public with it. The move to go public nets them negative press from their consumers and aside from a pat on the back from their non-consumers? That’s not how a business focused on the bottom line simply acts. I’m not deifying them by any means but we both know how the NRA, their Republican base, single issue voters over stupid ‘can’t take mah guns’ will react to this.

I completely disagree. That's like praising the coal industry creating the marketing phrase of "clean coal" because it'll somehow help climate change.

bnpederson wrote:

I completely disagree. That's like praising the coal industry creating the marketing phrase of "clean coal" because it'll somehow help climate change.

But coal, guns and the like still have a legitimate marketplace. Colt isn’t saying ‘safe guns,’ they’re disavowing an ‘assault rifle’ altogether for public consumption. They are closing a market, no matter how small that is perceived to be and putting themselves out there - not with an engineered catch phrase to obsfucate the issue but in a simple statement of ceasing public sales of ARs to the public. Do you think that para military and military budgets will be swayed by their stance? Many are god fearing, gun loving Republicans. If it’s a PR stunt, it’s a stupid one by any metric.

And by "disavowing" you mean stating that "the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity. Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future" and "high-volume [military and law enforcement] contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles."

Oh yeah, real strong disavowal there. Big stuff, I'm sure this is a game changer for gun regulation.

BlackSheep wrote:

Truth is, it is going to take private companies taking a stand, one by one to move what’s legally acceptable to culturally unacceptable. Dicks, Wal-Mart, Colt - they might cynically be PR moves, but they are also doing at least something - sometimes it’s just what they can do within their own orbits, but we shouldn’t simply discount it because others still make them or you can buy uppers and lowers and make your own rifle at any time.

Don't give companies all the credit. There are outside grassroots groups who've been pushing them.

Moms Demand Action lobbied Walmart hard and when they rolled used that initiative to get 40+ other retailers to ban guns from their stores as well.

BlackSheep wrote:

But it’s the optics man. They’re a gun company. They’re going to take (no pun) flak for this move from the ridiculous Right and they know that and signed up for that. For that, I absolutely applaud the public showing. They didn’t have to bother going public with it. The move to go public nets them negative press from their consumers and aside from a pat on the back from their non-consumers? That’s not how a business focused on the bottom line simply acts. I’m not deifying them by any means but we both know how the NRA, their Republican base, single issue voters over stupid ‘can’t take mah guns’ will react to this.

Colt's announcement wasn't them being a brave or good company or whatever. It was crisis communications for them.

Last week a gun blog published a screenshot of a mass email from a gun distributor. The email said that Colt told them "that they will be discontinuing production of all Colt long guns to focus on regaining military contracts." That bit of information percolated through the gun nut media and then broke into the right wing media yesterday.

All of the other media coverage about this stemmed from the press release Colt put out today, which they did to stop the rumors, put a positive spin on the news, and to reaffirm their commitment to the civilian market, albeit for handguns.

BlackSheep wrote:

But coal, guns and the like still have a legitimate marketplace. Colt isn’t saying ‘safe guns,’ they’re disavowing an ‘assault rifle’ altogether for public consumption. They are closing a market, no matter how small that is perceived to be and putting themselves out there - not with an engineered catch phrase to obsfucate the issue but in a simple statement of ceasing public sales of ARs to the public. Do you think that para military and military budgets will be swayed by their stance? Many are god fearing, gun loving Republicans. If it’s a PR stunt, it’s a stupid one by any metric.

Colt isn't "disavowing" civilian ARs or closing a market. They said that the civilian AR market "has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity" and that the company thinks there's "adequate supply" from a bazillion other AR manufacturers to meet civilian demand for the "foreseeable future."

They then said that all their manufacturing capacity was already being used for contracts it had to make rifles for the police and military and they remained committed to making 1911s and revolvers for the civilian market.

It was an acceptable way for them to back out of a niche they weren't competitive in anymore. Colt ARs have long cost two, three, or more times what other rifles cost and consumers were simply buying cheaper ARs. Colt didn't want to (or couldn't) make a budget AR to remain competitive.

And as much as Colt is a firearms legend, they are a shell of what they used to be. They went bankrupt a few years back after losing military contracts and their debt was bought by a holding company who's now calling the shots. I'm sure there were legions of financial analysts who crunched the numbers and figured out that more profit could be made by selling overpriced Colt rifles to cops and the military than competing against other civilian AR manufacturers. The rest is just trying to protect the Colt brand.

bnpederson wrote:

And by "disavowing" you mean stating that "the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity. Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future" and "high-volume [military and law enforcement] contracts are absorbing all of Colt’s manufacturing capacity for rifles."

Oh yeah, real strong disavowal there. Big stuff, I'm sure this is a game changer for gun regulation.

You’re right.

OG_slinger wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:

Truth is, it is going to take private companies taking a stand, one by one to move what’s legally acceptable to culturally unacceptable. Dicks, Wal-Mart, Colt - they might cynically be PR moves, but they are also doing at least something - sometimes it’s just what they can do within their own orbits, but we shouldn’t simply discount it because others still make them or you can buy uppers and lowers and make your own rifle at any time.

Don't give companies all the credit. There are outside grassroots groups who've been pushing them.

Moms Demand Action lobbied Walmart hard and when they rolled used that initiative to get 40+ other retailers to ban guns from their stores as well

Companies will rarely ever do something solely for the public good without outside pressure. Of course there was outside pressure. The fact that Wal-Mart did this when they are a monopoly in many rural areas of the US and could have continued to bury their head in the sand over this and weathered the storm is somewhat surprising. There’s not a lot of companies ready to pounce on their market share at this moment anyway in that arena.

Maybe they just made this big show to hide how terrible most of their employees get treated. Cut hours to less than full-time, that way you can deny benefits, pay a substandard wage, and have a large group of your own employees on welfare, which goes back into your company when they spend that welfare on groceries in your store. So the government is subsidizing your workforce and you. So yay corporations!

9 people was shot in Kansas City, four have died.

Barely registers nowadays

One person being shot in China made national news. A group of people are shot in American, come back when 20 or more die and maybe it will make news if dump hasn't tweeted something.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

One person being shot in China made national news. A group of people are shot in American, come back when 20 or more die and maybe it will make news if dump hasn't tweeted something.

Feature, not a bug.

Welcome to the party, Germany.

The man accused of attacking a synagogue in Germany broadcast his attack on the Twitch live-streaming video platform.

Speaking in English, the man called himself "anon" and announced himself as a Holocaust denier.

“Feminism is the cause of declining birth rates in the West, which acts as a scapegoat for mass immigration, and the root of all these problems is the Jew,” he continued, while filming himself in a car before starting the attack.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EG8xN3RWoAEgc78?format=jpg&name=small)

Coach stops kid with gun using the power of hugs.

Interesting this hasn't gotten a lot of play at least yet.

Baron Of Hell wrote:

Coach stops kid with gun using the power of hugs.

Interesting this hasn't gotten a lot of play at least yet.

To be fair, my understanding is that this wasn't a potential mass shooting. It was a suicidal kid with one shot.
Now that coach seems to be a hugely empathetic hero.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

Coach stops kid with gun using the power of hugs.

Interesting this hasn't gotten a lot of play at least yet.

To be fair, my understanding is that this wasn't a potential mass shooting. It was a suicidal kid with one shot.
Now that coach seems to be a hugely empathetic hero.

Anyone who has been in a suicidal situation involving a person with a gun will tell you that these things have a remarkable ability to go sideways with a startling rapidity and a "simple suicide" can go to a "multiple murder/suicide" in seconds. This looks a LOT like it could have ended up like the shooting we had a few years back. I am glad it all worked out for the best for everyone including the potential shooter. That coach deserves a medal.

Paleocon wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

Coach stops kid with gun using the power of hugs.

Interesting this hasn't gotten a lot of play at least yet.

To be fair, my understanding is that this wasn't a potential mass shooting. It was a suicidal kid with one shot.
Now that coach seems to be a hugely empathetic hero.

I do not mean to underplay it and in the moment who knows what could happen. Just in retrospect, the person only had a single shot/round/whatever, so it changes the story from potential mass shooter. Which I think directly goes to how the person received a relatively lite sentence.

Anyone who has been in a suicidal situation involving a person with a gun will tell you that these things have a remarkable ability to go sideways with a startling rapidity and a "simple suicide" can go to a "multiple murder/suicide" in seconds. This looks a LOT like it could have ended up like the shooting we had a few years back. I am glad it all worked out for the best for everyone including the potential shooter. That coach deserves a medal.

NRA Officials Found NRATV Messaging to Be ‘Distasteful and Racist’: Lawsuit

Daily Beast wrote:

The federal lawsuit between the National Rifle Association and the ad firm that created its now-defunct NRATV outlet has taken an uglier turn, with the pro-gun group now alleging its own leadership found the TV outlet’s messaging “distasteful and racist.”

According to an Oct. 25 amended complaint filed in its ongoing lawsuit against Ackerman McQueen, NRA officials believed the short-lived TV outlet—which featured shows from right-wing stars like Dana Loesch and Dan Bongino—“strayed from the Second Amendment to themes which some NRA leaders found distasteful and racist.”

As an example of a “damaging” segment, the NRA filing alludes to an instance on Loesch’s show Relentless, in which an on-air graph featured a picture of kid’s cartoon character Thomas the Tank Engine wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood.

“Attempts by the NRA to ‘rein in’ AMc and its messaging were met with responses from AMc that ranged from evasive to hostile,” the gun lobby further alleges.

Furthermore, the NRA claims, in closed-door meetings Ackerman McQueen presented to embattled NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre “fabricated and inflated sponsorship and viewership claims.” When tasked with the “simple request” of gathering digital “unique visitors” data for NRA executives, the filing claims, AMc went silent. Overall, the gun group alleges, the ad firm often gave an “intentionally (and wildly) misleading” representation of NRATV’s viewership performance.

“Tellingly, when NRATV finally shut down in June 2019, no one missed it,” the NRA fumes in the new filing. “Not a single sponsor or viewer even called, confirming what at least some NRA executives suspected—the site had limited visibility and was failing the accomplish any of its goals.”

Kinda sounds like AMQ knew their target audience better than NRA leadership TBH

Well failing it’s goals is sorta pointless when likely it’s actual goals were coming from Russia.

thrawn82 wrote:

Kinda sounds like AMQ knew their target audience better than NRA leadership TBH

I only seen support for it from NRA members.

Baron Of Hell wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

Kinda sounds like AMQ knew their target audience better than NRA leadership TBH

I only seen support for it from NRA members.

Most of the NRA members I know insist that they are not racist but still love using the N word.

TheGameguru wrote:

Well failing it’s goals is sorta pointless when likely it’s actual goals were coming from Russia.

This is it. Strange that all this stuff was wound down after Butina was arrested.

DSGamer wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

Well failing it’s goals is sorta pointless when likely it’s actual goals were coming from Russia.

This is it. Strange that all this stuff was wound down after Butina was arrested.

I get the distinct sense that the Russians were able to infiltrate the NRA in large part because it's leadership and everyone around them were a bunch of grifting, self-dealing assholes.

If anything the influx of Russian cash probably staved off the NRA's implosion by a year or two.